EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1

Euro NCAP 2025 Roadmap

I N P U R S U I T O F V I S I O N Z E R O

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

2

The focus of the roadmap is on the use of advanced technology to deliver improved

passenger car safety but also on how it might assist other road users. The continued

use of the overall rating scheme is envisaged, with its separation of assessment

into one of four areas, but a move is proposed to a more scenario-based scheme

in the future and to greater use of simulation to provide a broader and more robust

assessment. An assessment of automated driving is proposed, outside of the

main star rating scheme. For primary safety, driver monitoring (start date 2020)

is proposed, to mitigate the very significant problems of driver distraction and

impairment through alcohol, fatigue, etc. A reward is foreseen which is related both

to the problems detected by the system and to the action taken — warning in the

first instance, but also speed limitation etc. Autonomous Emergency Steering (AES,

2020) is a technology in its infancy and changes to legislation, expected in 2022, are

needed to allow full exploitation of its potential but driver-initiated, in-lane steering

support could be rewarded early in the roadmap period. Further developments in

Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB, 2020), to address cross-junction, head-on

and reversing accidents are proposed. Finally, V2X communication (2024) offers

great potential but agreement is first needed on the technology employed.

In the field of secondary safety, a review of whiplash testing will

rationalise and simplify the testing effort. For pedestrian protection,

an upper-body-mass leg impactor will yield more realistic test results

while headform testing will be extended to include cyclists.

For the first time, tertiary safety is addressed. From 2022, a reward is given

to Child Presence Detection, which can detect a child left alone in a car and

alert the owner and/or the emergency services, to avoid heatstroke fatalities.

A relatively low-technology approach is proposed for assisting rescue teams

to extricate occupants from a crashed vehicle. Euro NCAP will collaborate

with CTIF to ensure the availability of standardised rescue sheets.

Executive Summary

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

3

Automated driving can offer great safety potential by helping to eliminate driver

errors. Euro NCAP will promote the rapid, safe deployment of this technology

into the vehicle fleet by means of a categorisation of the type and degree of

assistance/automation offered, outside of the main star rating scheme. At the

same time, Euro NCAP will provide information to consumers to allay fears but also

to maintain realistic expectations of the degree of automation offered and of the

need for vigilance in cars where the level of automation is low or is not universal.

Finally, in the areas of truck city safety, powered two-wheelers and

cyber-security, the roadmap outlines projects with which Euro NCAP

may be associated whilst not necessarily taking the lead role.

Executive Summary

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

4

Executive Summary 3

Preface 5

1/ Introduction 6

2/ The Overall Safety Rating 7P R I M A R Y S A F E T Y 7

Driver Monitoring (2020) 7

Automatic Emergency Steering (2020, 2022) 8

Autonomous Emergency Braking (2020, 2022) 8

V2x (2024) 10

S E C O N D A R Y S A F E T Y 1 1

Whiplash/Rear-end Crash Protection (2020) 11

Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (2022) 11

T E R T I A R Y S A F E T Y 1 1

Rescue, Extrication and Safety (2020) 11

Child Presence Detection (2022) 11

C A R R Y - O V E R I T E M S 1 2

F U T U R E E V O L U T I O N 1 2

3/ Automated Driving 13T H E R O L E O F E U R O N C A P 1 3

A U T O M A T E D F U N C T I O N A L I T I E S 1 3

T E S T I N G A N D A S S E S S M E N T 1 3

G R A D A T I O N 1 4

4/ Other Initiatives 15T R U C K L A B E L 1 5

P O W E R E D T W O W H E E L E R S 1 5

C Y B E R S E C U R I T Y 1 6

Timeline 17

References 18

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

5

Before you lies Euro NCAP’s roadmap for the period between 2020 and

2025. The document provides guidance on the future developments and

activities of the European consumer safety program and may serve as

a reference for the automotive industry and other stakeholders.

Forward planning for this transient period, where available technology and

the boundary conditions are evolving rapidly, was difficult. Over the last

months, Euro NCAP has reached out to key external stakeholders in the

industry to discuss our first thoughts about the future safety rating and

its role in promoting automation. Debating these issues face to face has

helped us to identify the opportunities for vehicle safety improvement and

better understand the challenges that the automotive industry is facing.

Euro NCAP wishes to express its sincere gratitude to all who

participated in the consultation meetings and who have

provided the very valuable feedback and suggestions.

Leuven, 12 September 2017

Preface

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

6

1/ Introduction

It has been said that the auto industry will change more

in the next five to 10 years than it has in the last 50 and

this may very well be true for vehicle safety technology.

Automated driving technologies, now rapidly developing,

will transform the driving experience and the auto industry

as a whole. At the same time, Europe’s inevitable shift

towards an era of electric vehicle propulsion is expected

to accelerate, with 30 percent of sales electric by 2025

(UBS, 2017).

As an advocate for safer cars, Euro NCAP aims to highlight

automated driving technologies and raise awareness of

their benefits. But Euro NCAP will also keep challenging

vehicle manufacturers on what they are actually selling to

consumers on the European market. This means offering

the best possible technology as standard in all segments

and countries, protecting car occupants of all ages, sizes

and shapes and to also look out for the safety of other

road users in traffic.

With 256 million cars in use, Europe has the world larg-

est passenger car fleet. In 2016, over 14 million new cars

were registered (ACEA, 2017). Traditionally, the smaller

A- and B-segments dominate the passenger car sales

in numbers, while the mid-sized Sport Utility Vehicle

segment is one of the fastest growing. Over 95 percent

of new model sales in these segments are covered by a

rating, so it is probably fair to say that Euro NCAP has

a strong influence on the fitment and performance of

vehicle safety systems in the market.

Despite having one the highest motorisation rates, roads

in Europe remain the safest in the world: in 2016, the

EU-28 counted 50 road fatalities per one million inhab-

itants, against 174 deaths per million globally (European

Commission, 2017). Car occupants account for almost

half of road accident victims. However, all combined,

pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists make up almost

the same share. Looking beyond the fatality number, it

is estimated that 135,000 people are seriously injured on

European roads each year (European Commission, 2017).

Indeed, most of those seriously injured are vulnerable

road users and many are elderly, an age group that is

growing in importance.

The more widespread availability and affordability of

the technology that enables Advanced Driver Assist

Systems, such as AEB and LDW, has resulted in a signif-

icant increase in the uptake of such technology in recent

years. Still, the number of cars in the fleet equipped with

state-of-the-art ADAS remains relatively low and will not

yet have significantly changed common crash types or

the frequency of vehicle crashes. This is particularly true

for ADAS systems designed to address vulnerable road

user crashes, which are only just emerging on the market.

On the other hand, the widespread availability of bet-

ter-established or mandatory technologies, such as side

curtain airbags, SBR and ESC, have had a clear impact

on the frequency of some fatal or injurious crashes such

as single vehicle roll-overs. In developing a longer-term

agenda for vehicle safety, it is important to account for

the changes in real-world priorities and the anticipated

impact of emerging safety technologies.

Equally important is to understand how the consumer

mindset is changing and what it means for the car market.

Last year, the average car age in Europe rose again, to

over 10 years, some two years more than it was a decade

ago (ACEA, 2017). This adds pressure on organisations

like Euro NCAP that advocate widespread and timely

adoption of important safety technology across the

region. The average car buyer is getting older as well, as

lifespans extend and young people become less able

or willing to own a new car. Carmakers are expanding

mobility services such as car sharing, in order connect

young consumers to their brand.

To stay influential and relevant in this widening landscape,

vehicle safety information will not only have to appeal

(and be helpful) to the traditional car buying public, but

also to other user groups or business models. The overall

safety rating, a simple yet powerful tool in communicating

about vehicle safety, will remain one of Euro NCAP’s most

important output channels; however, to reach consumers

in their “content cocoons” and to connect with a broad

range of potential other users, Euro NCAP will also need

to develop attractive stories around safety-related topics.

In the upcoming years, significant changes to the reg-

ulatory landscape and to the content of vehicle safety

type approval are anticipated. The European Commission

has announced a revision of General Safety Regulation

661/2009, potentially including several new measures

that are part of consumer testing today (European Com-

mission, 2016). Euro NCAP must ensure that its safety

ratings will complement those developments and reward

higher performance in a faster timescale than regulation

requires.

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

7

2/ The Overall Safety Rating

Euro NCAP has already introduced some important

updates to the crash test program in recent years and

revisions to the front and side impact tests are planned

for 2020 (Euro NCAP, 2015). This shows that secondary

safety is and will remain at the heart of Euro NCAP’s

consumer ratings for some time. But Euro NCAP has

clearly recognised that primary safety has an increasingly

important role to play. As the rate of development in this

area accelerates, the safety rating is expected to include

more and more ADAS and crash avoidance technologies,

introduced by vehicle manufacturers. In the upcoming

period, Euro NCAP will also pay more attention to tertiary

safety in the rating using the Haddon matrix (Haddon,

1972) as guidance. Hence, the strategy going forwards

will emphasise primary, secondary and tertiary vehicle

safety as important enablers on the road to vision zero.

It is the intention that the Overall Rating System and

methodology (van Ratingen, 2008) will remain in place,

at least for the time being. It is clear, however, that there

is an increasing amount of overlap between safety

technologies offered on the market and that there is

more than one way in which a particular crash scenario

could be dealt with in terms of injury mitigation and/or

avoidance. Euro NCAP recognises the need to address

more effectively the way in which primary, secondary

(and tertiary) safety elements are integrated.

During the coming years, a transition is foreseen from

a “technology based” approach (e.g. tests for AEB) to

a more “scenario based” assessment that would allow

various types of interventions (e.g. braking and steering).

At the same time, passive safety test methodology will

be updated to allow for pre-crash activation of restraints.

This review of the overall rating methodology will also

address opportunities to exploit virtual testing to add

more robustness to the assessment. This transition

process will phase in from 2022 and is expected to be

completed by the end of the roadmap term in 2025.

Ensuring stability of the rating during this transition will

be essential.

Based on the evolution of safety technology in the

fleet, Euro NCAP plans to introduce several new test

items under the overall safety rating. These items may

be added or partly replace existing tests. The timescale

refers to the expected first introduction date in the rating

scheme. More details can be found in the Roadmap 2025

graphical timeline (see p.17).

As a final introductory remark, it should be noted that

Euro NCAP will continue to closely monitor the frequency

and nature of real-world crashes and advancements in

technology during the roadmap implementation years.

Where appropriate, it will pursue available possibilities

to test and rate important new features beyond those

that already have been identified here. This would allow

us to rapidly give credit for important safety innovations.

PRIMARY SAFETY

Driver Monitoring (2020)

More than ninety percent of road accidents are caused

by “human mistakes”. In general, two kinds of mistakes

can be observed: violations, of which speeding and

driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs are most

common; and human “errors”, in which the driver state

- inattentiveness, fatigue, distraction - and inexperience

play an important role. In an aging society, sudden medical

incapacitation is also a growing cause of road crashes.

Already, driver advisory systems such as Speed Assistance

Systems (SAS) and Attention Assist target the human ele-

ment in crashes by alerting the driver in critical situations

and, ultimately, by supporting the driver to improve his

behaviour. In addition, adapting intervention criteria to

individual drivers and the driver’s state may provide a

significant potential for earlier interventions in the future

without compromising false-positive levels.

Euro NCAP envisages an incentive for driver monitoring

systems1 that effectively detect impaired and distracted

driving and give appropriate warning and take effective

action e.g. initiating a safe evasive manoeuvre, limp home

mode, increased increasing sensitivity of Electronic Sta-

bility Control, lane support, speed, etc. Implementation

in the overall rating is planned in phases, starting with

systems that have already entered the market. The as-

sessment will evolve around how reliably and accurately

the status of the driver is detected and what action the

vehicle takes based on the information. Other aspects,

such as driver position monitoring, could be added in

future iterations of the protocol.

1 Effective driver monitoring will also be a prerequisite for automated driving, to make sure that, where needed, control can be handed back to a driver who is fit and able to drive the vehicle. This item will be taken on board under the HMI requirements for Automated Driving.

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

8

Automatic Emergency Steering (2020, 2022)

Current AEB systems show potential to avoid or mitigate

many crashes but Automatic Emergency Steering, or

AES, although technically more demanding, may deliver

a further significant reduction in crashes and casualties,

in particular for single vehicle and small overlap crashes

and accidents involving vulnerable road users.

• About 20 percent of Killed and Seriously Injured

(KSI) originate from loss of control or lane or road

departure (STATS 19, 2015)2.

• Frontal collisions with a small overlap account for

around 15 percent of all car accidents and 25 per-

cent of all car accidents involving a frontal collision

(German Insurance Association, 2013). This amounts

to approximately 10 percent of KSI in small overlap

crashes.

• Vulnerable road user KSI account for 36 percent

(STATS 19, 2015).

The hardware needed for automated steering (e.g. au-

tomated parking, steer by wire) is available and on sale,

as is the vehicle support for driver initiated emergency

steering. However, very few automatic steering interven-

tion systems are currently offered. Despite challenges in

market introduction and cost effective manufacturing,

AES technology is expected to land into the market in

the coming years. Regulation 79 is expected to permit

Emergency Steering Functions (ESF) by sometime around

the year 2020 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/82, 2016)

and this will facilitate the development and fitment of

AES. Euro NCAP sees possibilities to stimulate the up-

take of AES technologies and verify their performance by

including them in the rating scheme, based on dangerous

situations with a range of road users and interactions.

As a first step, Euro NCAP plans to include driver-in-

itiated, within-lane steering support technology in the

overall rating in 2020. Information on the acceptance,

robustness and performance of such systems will be

gathered before taking the next step towards testing

systems that may carry out more radical “avoidance by

steering and braking” interventions. The timeframe for

this second step will also be determined by what will be

legally allowed in the future, but implementation is not

expected before 2022.

Autonomous Emergency Braking (2020, 2022)

The primary goal of AEB technology is to prevent crashes

by detecting a potential conflict and alerting the driver,

and, in many systems, aiding in brake application or

automatically applying the brakes. The technology was

successfully introduced in the safety rating in 2014, and

was tested first in rear-end car-to-car collisions (Schram,

Williams, & van Ratingen, 2013) and subsequently in

pedestrian crossing accidents (Schram, Williams, & van

Ratingen, 2015). The performance of an AEB system is

dependent on the type and complexity of the sensors

used. More and more manufacturers are adding additional

sensors and combining multiple sensor types together in

“fusion” to offer the potential to address new and more

complex crash scenarios.

Euro NCAP expects AEB technology to continue to evolve

in the years ahead and has identified three priority areas

where the rating scheme will be updated to reflect the

progress in industry:

• Back-over or reversing crashes usually happen at low

speeds at driveways and parking lots. Recent accident

research by the German insurers suggests that up

to 17 percent of collisions between pedestrians and

vehicles with personal injury occur at the rear side of

the car. The majority of accident victims (63 percent)

were elderly, while children under 12 years of age

accounted for 6 percent (German Insurers Accident

Research, 2017). It is estimated that, Europe-wide, the

number of seriously injured pedestrians in revering

crashes could amount to 1,400 per year. A driver

assistance system which detects the presence of

persons behind the car and automatically initiates

braking or prevent acceleration could have significant

potential to prevent accidents involving cars and

pedestrians (German Insurers Accident Research,

2010). Taking the work done by the insurance industry

as a starting point (RCAR, 2017), Euro NCAP plans to

adopt the reversing pedestrian scenario to the AEB

Vulnerable Road User - Pedestrian test suite in 2020.

• Crossing and turning manoeuvres that occur at

junctions create opportunities for vehicle-vehicle,

vehicle-pedestrian, and vehicle-(motor)cycle conflicts,

which often result in traffic crashes. Typically, crossing

2 STATS 19 does not codify lane departure accidents so lane departure accident were constructed by considering the following variables: Number of casualties where at least one vehicle involved was a car that performing changing lane, overtaking, going ahead in bend manoeuvres, and vehicle left the carriageway.

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

9

© 2017 Thatcham Research

© 2017 Thatcham Research

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 0

accidents are the result of running a red light, lack of

visibility, driver inattentiveness or speeding. Turning

crashes are often caused by misjudging or failing to

observe oncoming traffic when turning left or right. In

crossing scenarios, where the speed of the ego vehicle

is relatively low, and in turning scenarios, an AEB

intervention could effectively prevent a crash. Testing

could include car, pedestrian, cyclist and Powered-

two-wheeler (PTW) targets and commence in 2020.

• Head-on scenarios. A combined assessment of

steering and braking interventions within the lane to

prevent narrow overlap head-on crashes with other

road users (cars, PTW, pedestrians) is foreseen from

2022 (see also EAS).

V2x (2024)

V2x communication, which involves vehicles exchang-

ing data with each other and the infrastructure, has the

potential to improve traffic safety and increase the effi-

ciency of transport. Examples of safety-related functions

include the ability to transmit and receive messages

like “Emergency electronic brake lights”, “Motorcycle is

approaching” or “Roadwork ahead”. In order to provide

a benefit over and beyond regular onboard sensors,

V2x must identify a potential risk earlier than any of the

surrounding sensors can “see” the danger. This means

low latency, secure, beyond line of sight communication

and localised data transfer.

In general, there are two different communications ap-

proaches being discussed to address this need: 802.11p,

a standard available today and favoured by the US, and

the new cellular-V2X (5G). Leading car makers, chip

makers and cellular operators have established the 5G

Automotive Association (5G Automotive Association,

2016) to develop, test, and promote 5G systems for

automated vehicles. The European Union expects 5G

services to be rolled out by 2020, though in reality it may

take several more years to fully deploy the infrastructure

required (European Parliament, 2017).

As long as there is uncertainty about the V2X standard

and the timing, carmakers do not seem to prioritise V2X

safety functions for the European market. It is expected,

however, that by 2024 much of the technological uncer-

tainty will have been resolved, leaving only the demand

uncertainty. Euro NCAP recognises the safety potential

of V2V and V2X technologies, for car occupants, vulner-

able road users and powered two wheelers. To support

the availability of technology on the vehicle side, new

incentives will be introduced in the rating scheme for

V2X technology that support and enhance important

safety functions.

© 2017 CERAM-UTAC

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 1

SECONDARY SAFETY

Whiplash/Rear-end Crash Protection (2020)

It is nearly ten years since Euro NCAP first introduced an

assessment of the protection provided against whiplash

injuries in a rear-end collision (Avery, 2008). A review has

been carried out of the correlation between those ratings

and real-world performance which suggests that the

numbers of criteria and pulses could be reduced without

significantly reducing the real-world effectiveness. Held

back by the limited of progress of the Informal Group on

UN Global Technical Regulation 7 (Phase II), the planned

re-evaluation of the tests for 2018 is postponed to 2020.

This review will also determine whether there is any justifi-

cation for a higher energy test to be included in Euro NCAP.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (2022)

Current pedestrian impact tests make use of the child and

adult headform impactors, the upper legform impactor

and the pedestrian legform impactor, FlexPLI. With

the FlexPLI, injuries to the pedestrian’s knee ligaments

(ACL/PCL and MCL) as well as injuries to the tibia can

be assessed. However, without an upper body mass

representing the pedestrian’s torso, the impactor does

not provide any information about injuries to the femur

portion of the lower extremities. Moreover, the current,

linearly-guided upper legform impactor test is not truly

representative of the loading that normally occurs. Two

independent research studies (FlexPLI with Upper Body

Mass; EC Seniors Project, Horizon2020, 2017); (aPLI;

Isshiki, 2016) have shown the feasibility of replacing the

current upper and lower legform tests with a revised test,

using a leg impactor that represents the human leg with

an upper body mass. Euro NCAP plans to adopt the most

feasible procedure once it is available and proven robust,

ahead of potential adoption in European Regulation.

Euro NCAP is also aiming to modify pedestrian head

impactor testing to include ambient conditions rele-

vant for cyclists as the second big group of vulnerable

road users. Based on the findings of recent European

research as well as the existing pedestrian protection

requirements, common head test boundary conditions

for pedestrians and cyclists could be derived, whereby

the existing requirements are modified and two parallel

test procedures are avoided. Such rearrangement of

pedestrian/cyclist head form test conditions must take

account of the likely benefits of avoidance technology as

well as the implications for deployable bonnets.

TERTIARY SAFETY

Rescue, Extrication and Safety (2020)

Rescue services require detailed but readily-understood

information regarding the construction of individual

vehicles to extricate trapped occupants as quickly and

safely as possible. This is becoming more pressing

as vehicles become stronger (e.g. use of high strength

steels or composite materials), use different sources of

power (e.g. electric/hybrid, hydrogen) and are equipped

with increasing numbers of safety devices (e.g. airbags,

pre-tensioners). Car makers in recent years have invested

in “Rescue sheets” but their availability and dissemination

across Europe is not always guaranteed. Euro NCAP,

in collaboration with the International Service of Fire &

Rescue Services (CTIF), will support the timely availability

of ISO 17840 compliant rescue sheets (ISO 17840-1:2015,

2015), consider the best options to centralise and main-

tain a database and have information available on the

vehicle (for instance, a standardised ID tag with a link

to the database).

Euro NCAP’s tests and inspections already include

some assessments of areas relevant to entrapment

e.g. door-opening forces. The inspection procedure will

be broadened to include other relevant areas such as

preventing automotive entrapment and the safety of

batteries or hydrogen fuel-cells and tanks.

Child Presence Detection (2022)

Leaving an unattended child in a parked car, even for a few

minutes, can cause heat-stroke and death. Child deaths

from vehicle-related heat-stroke happen less frequently

than those resulting from crashes, but the nature of these

entirely avoidable deaths deserves special attention.

A child’s inability to exit the vehicle on his/her, own

combined with a low tolerance for high temperatures,

requires that children never be left unattended in a car.

Technological solutions are available that can monitor

a child’s presence in the vehicle and alert the car owner

or emergency services should the situation become

dangerous. Euro NCAP will reward manufacturers that

offer such solutions as standard.

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 2

CARRY-OVER ITEMS

The beginning of the roadmap 2025 is also the final year of

the current strategic plan (Euro NCAP, 2015). Accordingly,

a number of major rating updates have previously been

announced to which Euro NCAP clearly stays committed.

In 2020, the off-set deformable barrier test will be re-

placed by the mobile progressive barrier test, introducing

the THOR-50M Anthropomorphic Test Device. At the

same time, the side impact (AE-MDB) barrier mass and

test speed will be revised and far-side protection will be

added to the Adult Occupant Protection score.

Child Occupant Protection test & assessment will be

brought into full alignment with Regulation 129, phasing

out references to the defunct Regulation 44. Whenever

available, Euro NCAP intends to adopt an improved Q10

child dummy specification to address ongoing concerns

about the dummy’s adult belt interaction, modifying the

criteria and limits in accordance.

It is also proposed to incrementally update the assessment

protocols of both Speed Assistance and Lane Support

System to reflect advancements in the capabilities of

systems entering the market. In the case of speed assis-

tance systems, this includes adding incentives for system

recognition of traffic signs, such as “One-way”, “No entry”,

“Stop” or “Yield” road signs. A more stringent assessment

of Lane Support Systems has already been announced,

putting more emphasis on Emergency Lane Keep per-

formance over basic Lane Keep Assist. Further revisions

may include adding a Power Two-Wheeler target in the

overtake scenario or testing at curved road segments.

FUTURE EVOLUTION

Technological advancements in safety will continue to

accelerate and find their way into the vehicle fleet and

transport system. With these innovations, new questions

will arise regarding methodology and principle: E.g. how

can radically different seating and restraint concepts for

highly automated driving solutions be effectively evaluated

and what will it mean for the long-established practices

in crash testing? How can the validity and value of star

ratings be guaranteed when over-the-cloud software up-

dates become common-place for critical safety systems

in cars? For this and other reasons, Euro NCAP expects

to begin to review its strategic direction again in the not

too distant future, probably by 2020.

© 2017 Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 3

For several years, Euro NCAP has recognised that active

safety technologies can bring safety benefits, either by

aiding safe driving (SAS, LSS) or by intervening to help

avoid a crash if one is imminent (ESC, AEB). Technology is

evolving quickly and more and more of the driving function

is being handed to the vehicle. Given that around 90

percent of road accidents are attributable to driver error,

the potential safety benefits of increased automation

are clear assuming that the automation is at least as

competent as the driver in complex traffic situations. It

is therefore in Euro NCAP’s interests to raise awareness

of the technologies that exist among consumers and to

promote their introduction in such a way that the safety

benefits are realised. At the same time, we need to check

that these technologies do not introduce new risks with

a potential negative impact on safety.

THE ROLE OF EURO NCAP

Public expectations of automated driving are high, al-

though understanding may be low, and car manufacturers

will naturally seek to promote the technologies they offer.

In such an environment, it would be easy for consumers to

base their purchasing decisions on information provided

by the manufacturer. In this situation, Euro NCAP can:

• Clarify availability and inform consumers on what

is and what is not automated driving.

• Clearly identify functionality and encourage com-

mercial unambiguous labelling.

• Develop protocols to assess safe automation in

terms of technical performance and driver vehicle

interaction.

• Ensure that safety remains a factor in consumers’

purchasing decisions when it comes to automated

driving technologies.

• While at the same time;

• Promote automated driving technologies and raise

awareness of their safety benefits and performance

limitations.

AUTOMATED FUNCTIONALITIES

The development of passenger car automation is likely

to be rapid but evolutionary. No car yet offers complete

automation in all situations and driving environments.

However, early examples of Level 3 automation, allowing

the driver to disengage from the driving task in defined

situations, are entering the market.

The main characteristic of current functions is the simul-

taneous automation of longitudinal and lateral control but

these still require the driver to oversee their safe operation.

Given the step-wise development of technologies, it

makes sense to assess automated driving on a function

by function basis i.e. the scenarios in which automated

driving is provided is to be assessed separately. This would

allow consumers to compare the results of one vehicle

with those of another in the same driving situation and

ensure correct system use. The following is a list of use

cases for which some degree of assistance or automation

function is offered, or expected to be offered soon, and

in which Euro NCAP may have an interest:

• Parking

• City driving

• Inter-Urban driving

• Traffic Jam

• Highway driving

In some use-cases, automation can offer greater safety

benefits than in others. In the future, there may be good

reason to combine the assessments of individual func-

tionalities into a combined ‘Automated Driving’ rating.

This would weigh the results of individual functionalities

by the relative safety relevance.

TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

Euro NCAP is, and will remain, dedicated to the promo-

tion of safer vehicles by providing relevant consumer

information. To this end, Euro NCAP aims to test the

performance of a system and, to some extent, assess

the driver-vehicle interaction.

Consumer information about Automated Driving systems

must be based on transparent, objective and non-dis-

criminatory criteria and the independent testing of the

technology. Therefore, specific test and assessment pro-

cedures for safe Automated Driving in terms of technical

performance as well as Human Machine Interaction (HMI)

have to be developed.

Given that the first systems will already enter the market

before test procedures can be completed, Euro NCAP

3/ Automated Driving

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 4

will focus firstly on informing consumers on the func-

tionality, technical limitations and HMI of these systems.

This means it aims to provide explanatory information

covering some of the following items: Definition (e.g.

manual, branding), System Enable, System Activation

(e.g. with ACC), Operation (functional testing of principle

system functionality such as AEB, SAS, etc.), Driver de-

activation (e.g. considered manoeuvre, like switch, brake

or steer), Drop out (automatic deactivation e.g. at end of

road markings), Override (instantaneous driver takeover,

e.g. emergency cases).

In addition, regarding successful HMI, Euro NCAP will

examine drivers’ expectations and comprehension based

on manufacturer’s information as well as the behaviour

of the system itself, to ensure a safe and intended use.

For the first time, a dual way of interaction-assessment

will be carried out pragmatically, integrating not only

experts’ technical testing but also information from user

studies in the assessment process. For this purpose,

standardized protocols and procedures for expert and

user assessments will be developed soon.

GRADATION

For the time being, the assessment of automated driving

will be kept separate from Euro NCAP’s mainstream star

rating scheme. A separate gradation scheme is proposed,

with simple, descriptive levels of the degree and safety of

the system. Euro NCAP plans for a phased-in approach

that will focus first on Continued Assistance systems,

particularly the Highway and Traffic Jam Assistants.

This will probably start ahead of the roadmap term, or

as early as 2018/2019.

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 5

TRUCK LABEL

In 2011, in the EU-27, there were 4,252 fatalities from

collisions involving Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) with

a weight over 3.5 tonnes. This represents 18 percent of

the 27,000 people killed in road accidents in Europe

that year (Wismans, 2016). The largest proportion of

HGV-related casualties was car occupants impacting a

truck, crashes that occur mostly in rural areas. This was

followed by accidents with vulnerable road users, 60

percent of which occur in urban areas. Truck occupants

represent the lowest proportion of fatalities.

Trucks represent around five percent of registered vehicles

and are involved in around four percent of all injury acci-

dents but around 15 percent of fatal road accidents. This

shows that they are no more likely to become involved

in a collision than other vehicle types but when they do,

the collision is far more likely to cause a fatality. There-

fore, trucks have a disproportionately negative effect on

road safety. This excessive impact is linked to their size,

weight and the way they are designed. Because of a high

seating position and their vehicles’ brick-shaped cabs,

truck drivers have a very poor field of view. In particular,

in built-up areas, this leads to blind spot accidents and

when crashes occur, vulnerable road users are often run

over by the wheels.

Opportunities are being discussed to use traditional and

emerging technologies to promote the safety of vehicles

other than passenger cars. A recent ACEA report (Wismans,

2016) has identified the following as effective counter-

measures that would provide cost-benefit: emergency

braking systems that can detect cars and VRUs; extended

flexible front under-run protection; lane-keeping support

and visibility support (aimed at reducing blind spots);

and speed assistance systems. The question is why

these technologies have remained relatively uncommon

across the HGV fleet in Europe and how that situation

could be changed.

A dedicated truck label would be a stand-alone instru-

ment targeting a new category of vehicles not covered

by a safety rating. The label would:

• Accelerate the market penetration and reduce the

cost of safer vehicles and technologies by creating

scale required for mass-market penetration. With this

approach the demand across Europe will be extended

so that it will be commercially attractive to vehicle

manufacturers to implement safety systems. It will

also improve competitiveness between producers

and encourage them to build trucks that are safer

than their competitors;

• Enable more authorities and operators to make

use of and scale up urban truck safety schemes by

reducing administrative barriers;

• Reduce the administrative burden for companies

operating in and between different European cities

(that currently may have different requirements);

• Complement and reinforce regulatory efforts such as

the General Safety Regulation or UNECE processes.

Euro NCAP will support, but not necessarily lead, the

technical development of such a label for cities as well

as highways, based on the experience it has gained with

testing and rating of different safety technologies.

POWERED TWO WHEELERS

Over the last decades, motorcycles and mopeds have

gained significant popularity in European cities. Riding

a powered-two-wheeler offers an attractive alternative

to private car ownership because it is generally is less

expensive and has advantages in terms of parking and

mobility in dense traffic. Compared to cars, however,

powered-two-wheelers are more vulnerable and they

are involved in a disproportionately high percentage of

fatal and serious crashes. Moreover, the safety of pow-

ered-two-wheelers has not improved nearly as much as

that of passenger cars.

Technologies such as anti-lock braking, electronic sta-

bility control, traction control and other safety related

equipment that would help to improve the situation for

powered-two-wheelers have been available for years,

but are often limited to high-end, expensive motorcy-

cles. Powered-two-wheeler safety is an urgent problem

that requires closer collaboration between the car and

motorcycle industries and more awareness amongst

riders about the potential benefits of the latest safety

innovations.

Euro NCAP’s first and foremost role is to help address the

powered-two-wheeler situation by promoting passenger

car solutions. Last year, new initiatives were started to

study the type of crashes that the motorcyclists are in-

4/ Other Initiatives

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 6

volved in, to evaluate the most suitable ADAS systems

to avoid these kinds of crashes and to develop the test

equipment and procedures to assess the system per-

formance. The outcome of this research will be used to

facilitate the rating scheme updates (AEB, see page 8).

Motorcycle manufacturers themselves see considerable

potential in Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) , which

are specifically designed for powered-two-wheeler riders

and in those that seek to protect riders, by giving them

a digital presence with surrounding vehicles, and which

can inform and warn the other vehicle drivers by means

of an appropriate HMI of the oncoming motorcycle. The

Connected Motorcycle Consortium (Connected Motor-

cycle Consortium, 2014) was set up to create a common

approach for ITS on powered-two-wheelers and achieve

successful implementation and deployment of ITS

functions. Also on this subject, Euro NCAP intends to

support technology adoption on the side of the vehicle

(V2X, see page 7).

CYBER SECURITY

As cars become increasingly connected and depend

more and more on the exchange of data over the in-

ternet, so they become more vulnerable to hacking and

cyber-attack. Cases have already been reported of some

vehicle controls being remotely manipulated and there is

increasing concern that this weakness could be exploited

maliciously to jeopardise safety. In other words: a system

that is not secure is not safe.

Cyber-Security is not, per se, of direct relevance to Euro

NCAP. However, technologies may emerge that offer a

safety benefit and Euro NCAP may reward these, thereby

advising consumers that vehicles will be safer for having

such systems. If it transpires that these systems are

easily attacked in a way that undermines their safety,

trust in Euro NCAP’s rating could also be undermined.

Work is ongoing to develop a revision of ISO 26262 (Au-

tomotive Functional Safety) and a joint working group

between ISO (21434) and SAE (J3061) has started the

development of an Automotive Cyber-Security Standard.

This will provide a Cyber-Security process framework and

help companies design security into cyber-physical vehicle

systems throughout the entire development lifecycle

process. At the same time, the topic is discussed by the

UN Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues, under

Umbrella of WP29/ITS-AD group (Informal Working

Group on Intelligent Transport Systems-Automated

Driving (ITS/AD), 2017).

Euro NCAP will continue to monitor how these standards

and regulations develop and how the industry is respond-

ing. Through compliance with these existing standards,

Euro NCAP may require a minimum level of Cyber-Security

be demonstrated by the vehicle manufacturer.

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 7

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

RO

AD

MA

P 2

02

0

AE

B V

RU

cyclist

Far-side p

rotection

Mob

ile progressive d

eformab

le barrier

RO

AD

MA

P 2

02

5 —

SA

FE

TY

RA

TIN

G

Driver m

onitorin

g

AE

B V

RU

ped

estrian - B

ack-over

AE

B - Ju

nction

& C

rossing

AE

B - H

ead-on

Au

tomatic E

mergen

cy Steerin

g

V2

X

Wh

iplash

/R

ear-end

Crash

Protection

Revised

sub

system for p

edestrian

& cyclist

Rescu

e, extrication an

d safety

Ch

ild p

resence d

etection

RO

AD

MA

P 2

02

5 —

AD

Grad

ing of A

D fu

nction

s

Start

Proto

col R

elease

Co

mm

un

ication

on

ly b

ased o

n first id

easP

rop

osal to

release up

dates o

ut

of ph

ase with

overall rating

Imp

lemen

tation

Timeline Start Protocol Release Implementation

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 8

References

5 G A U T O M O T I V E AS S O C I AT I O N . ( 2 0 1 6 ) . Retrieved 2017, from 5G Automotive Association: http://5gaa.org/

A C E A . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . ACEA Pocket Guide 2017 - 2018.

AV E RY, M . ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Euro NCAP Whiplash Test Procedure – A new Consumer Seat Rating Programme .

C O N N E C T E D M O T O R C YC L E C O N S O R T I U M . ( 2 0 1 4 ) . Retrieved from Connected Motorcycle Consortium: http://www.cmc-info.net/

C T I F. ( N . D . ) . Retrieved from CTIF - International Technical Committee for the Prevention and Extinction of Fire: http://www.ctif.

org/ctif/about-ctif

E C S E N I O R S P R O J E C T, H O R I Z O N 2 0 2 0 . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . Retrieved from grant agreement n° 636136: http://www.seniors-project.eu/

( 2 0 1 6 ) . ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/82.

E U R O N C A P. ( 2 0 1 5 ) . Euro NCAP 2020 Roadmap (Revision 1). Brussels.

E U R O P E A N C O M M I S S I O N . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . 2016 road safety statistics: What is behind the figures? La Valette.

E U R O P E A N C O M M I S S I O N . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . Road Safety: Encouraging results in 2016 call for continued efforts to save lives on EU roads. La

Valette.

E U R O P E A N C O M M I S S I O N . ( 2 0 1 6 ) . Saving Lives: Boosting Car Safety in the EU; Reporting on the monitoring and assessment of

advanced vehicle safety features, their. Brussels.

E U R O P E A N PA R L I A M E N T. ( 2 0 1 7 ) . Briefing: Towards a European gigabit society - Connectivity targets and 5G. Retrieved from http://

www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/603979/EPRS_BRI(2017)603979_EN.pdf

G E R M A N I N S U R A N C E AS S O C I AT I O N . ( 2 0 1 3 ) . Compact accident research 38: Small-overlap frontal impacts involving passenger cars

in Germany. Berlin: UDV.

G E R M A N I N S U R E R S A C C I D E N T R E S E A R C H . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . Compact Accident Research 71: Research report FS 03 Car rear and side collisions

with pedestrians and cyclists. Berlin: UDV.

G E R M A N I N S U R E R S A C C I D E N T R E S E A R C H . ( 2 0 1 0 ) . Research report FS 03: Advanced driver assistance systems - An investigation of

their potential safety benefits based on an analysis of in-surance claims in Germany. Berlin: UDV.

H A D D O N , W. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity,. J Trauma , 12:193--207.

I N F O R M A L W O R K I N G G R O U P O N I N T E L L I G E N T T R A N S P O R T S YS T E M S -AU T O M AT E D D R I V I N G ( I T S /A D ) . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . TFCS-0-02e Terms of Reference

and the Rules of Procedure of the UN Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues. Geneva.

I S O 1 7 8 4 0 - 1 : 2 0 1 5 . ( 2 0 1 5 ) . Retrieved from Road vehicles — Information for first and second responders — Part 1: Rescue sheet

for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:17840:-1:ed-1:v1:en

I S S H I K I , T. ( 2 0 1 6 ) . Development and Evaluation of the Advanced Pedestrian Legform Impactor Prototype which can be Applicable

to All Types of Vehicles Regardless of Bumper Height . IRCOBI. Malaga.

EU

RO

NC

AP

20

/25

RO

AD

MA

P

1 9

References

R C A R . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . http://www.rcar.org/Papers/MemberPapers/Reverse%20AutoBrake%20Test%20Procedure.pdf. Retrieved 2017,

from Procedure for assessing the performance of Reverse Autonomous Emergency Braking (R-AEB) systems in rear collisions.

E U R O N C A P ’S F I R S T S T E P T O AS S E S S AU T O N O M O U S E M E R G E N C Y B R A K I N G ( A E B ) F O R V R U. ESV, (pp. Paper Number: 15-0277). Gothenburg.

S C H R A M , R . , W I L L I A M S , A . , & VA N R AT I N G E N , M . ( 2 0 1 3 ) . Implementation of Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), The Next Step In

Euro NCAP’s Safety Assessment. ESV, (pp. Paper Number: 13-0269). Seoul.

S TAT S 1 9 . ( 2 0 1 5 ) . UK Road Accidents Safety Data. Retrieved from Road Safety Data - Datasets - Data.gov.uk: https://data.gov.

uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data

U B S . ( 2 0 1 7, M AY 1 8 ) . UBS Evidence Lab Electric Car Teardown – Disruption Ahead? Retrieved August 2017, from Advantage Lithium:

http://www.advantagelithium.com/_resources/pdf/UBS-Article.pdf

VA N R AT I N G E N , M . ( 2 0 0 8 ) . The Changing Outlook of Euro NCAP. 9th International Symposium & Exhibition on Sophisticated Car

Occupant Safety Systems. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ICT.

W I S M A N S , J . ( 2 0 1 6 ) . What are the most significant safety improvements that can be made to trucks used in urban and ural

areas? Brussels: ACEA